Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Originally posted by Mat D.:In a time of war (indeed we are at war) I find it appalling and downright un-American to read some of the things the George is spitting out.

The Dems are doing everything they can to destroy a descent man, Bush (no I don't agree w/all everything he does) and at the same time putting our national security at risk...Sadam H. is probably laughing his ugly ass off!!!!

I would like to have heard the Dems complaints if Bush would have instituted new strict security measures based on evidence that could as well have been propaganda for the enemy---what was Bush to do----these guys get reports like this every week...do we cripple ourselves based on info that is not specific or neccessarily credible in any way---in that scenerio the terrorist wins.

I'm, not laughing and I think George and the like ought think about how fortunate they are to be living in this country.[/b]

Thank you, Mat D. I was wondering how long it would be take for me to be called a traitor for raising questions about the President's decisions. And you did not disappoint me.

Now, explain to me again what is wrong with a dictatorship that does not allow freedom of speech to criticize the government over major policies?

Or perhaps, as long as our government goes to war, there is no difference between the US and a such a dictatorship on free speech issues.

I think many of you do not understand the issue here. The issue is whether or not Bush2's White House is capable of making fully informed decisions on major issues of primary import to the US -- and whether it made a fully informed decision in this case.

It is becoming clear that there was a lot of information available to the White House that it either did not seek to get, because 1) it was not given to the White House by others under the control of the White House, 2) was given but no one in the White House was capable of putting it together or 3) that the White House had all the necessary information but did not analzye it properly.

Whichever way this falls, it brings into question the decision making process of the White House -- which includes the gathering of information to make that decision.

I do not believe Bush2 chose to make a bad decision. I just think that it is now clear his decision to take the few, minor actions he took were inadequate. Because they were inadequate, 911 occurred and all of the fallout has come.

No doubt, had Mr. Bush been given other information, he might have taken other actions. But he was not given the information (apparently) -- by the very same people who work for him under people he, himself, appointed.

Who then is to be held responsible? Some middle level manager in the FBI? Or the man who runs things. Who is responsble for setting up the structure by which the President analyzes alternatives and makes decisions? The President himself is!

No, JBryan I do not see a difference between Buish2 in this regards and the Bishops or the Enron Execs. If the Manager runs a flawed decision making operation which leads to flawed decisions by him -- the executive must be held responsible because HE is the one who set up that process.

George Bush is not an evil man. But it appears, at the very least, that he did not set up a structure which ensured he would get the information he needs to have to make decisions about something as basic to his job as the security of the US.

If he failed this time, how can we be sure he will not fail again? And, do we really want to have a man with a failed decision making process to be making decisions about a war which, as everyone agrees, is a wide open process not defined and with no specific end in sight -- and no way to know when the end is coming? And do we want a man with a flawed decision making process making many other important decisions for us?

George, you are not so ignorant, as to not understand how government works. Government has an organizational memory, they are called federal employees. These guys are there year in, year out, doing all of the dirty little jobs of any organization. The same type of briefings have been churned out for Presidents and their staffs for more than 100 years. The nameless guys behind the desks at the FBI, CIA, NSA, interpret their data and report it up the line. It doesn't matter who occupies the Oval Office.

Your problem is that you are uncomfortable with Bush's decision making process. Not the American people. After 911, he has been judged by the people of the United States and has been shown to have "the right stuff". Consequently, Al Gore, nor any of other Democratic Presidential hopefuls, have the chance of a snowball in hades of defeating Bush in 2004.

And that's what is really scaring the Hell out of you, isn't it George? :p :p :p

No, JBryan I do not see a difference between Buish2 in this regards and the Bishops or the Enron Execs. If the Manager runs a flawed decision making operation which leads to flawed decisions by him -- the executive must be held responsible because HE is the one who set up that process.[/b]

I had hoped to avoid doing this but since you choose to remain obtuse I will take you by your hand and show you what I think you see already.

When you refer to the decisions made by these Bishops and the Enron managers the question is WHY did they make the decisions they made. What was motivating them in their decision making process. The answer, of course, is that they made these decisions in order to cover their ass. Or, in the case of Enron, it was a combination of that and an attempt to defraud investors.

Comparing these decisions with those made by Bush (they might actually more properly be compared with those made by Clinton) is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue, drawing parallels between what was clear malfeasance and what, so far, has not even been shown to be a mistake or error in judgment. You keep insisting that he be held responsible for the results of errors of his subordinates but show me what errors were made that resulted in these terrorist attacks being allowed to happen. And try to do it without resorting to vague generalities about information not being handled correctly. That does not show how any action taken differently would have averted 9/11.

This is going nowhere and your obtuseness only increases with each post.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Read this link George. It seems that 1999 was when a briefing was written with the most specific details of slamming planes into buildings. It describes what happened on 9/11 almost like it was written after the fact.

Now who was president in 1999, George? Do you recall the airline industry and the military being put on high alert in 1999? Do you remember a public announcement by Bubba Clinton warning everyone like you claim Bush should have done? And do you have any evidence to indicate that Bubba Clinton set anything in motion to begin a defense against terrorists?

Oh!! Here's another one George! It seems that in addition to being warned in such detail in 1999, Clinton was also warned in just as much detail in 1994, but he had it hushed up and details removed!! Seems like if Bush should be getting as much heat as your democrat buddies are giving him, then Clinton should be brought up on treason since he not only knew the details as far back as 1994, but he had more details, and he altered them and hid them from Congress. That is, if you're willing to hold him to the same standards you have set out for Bush.

It would be hypocritical for you to not admit straight out that it was in fact Bill Clinton and the Democratic party who failed to act and, if you want to blame someone for 9/11, that Bill Clintoid is responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

You are right. I am uncomfortable with Bush2's decision making process. Thank you for being one of the few who understands the issue I am trying to make.

I do not agree with you that the American people are comfortable with it. Yes, his popularity is high, but there has been no real debate in this country since last September. It began on domestic issues in March and that was when his popularity began to fall -- and has fallen by 15-20%, not a good sign, even if it remains high. Now the debate is going to begin on his handling of 9/11. Once the people have heard the debate and taken it in and digested it, let's see if they remain comfortable.

JBryan,

I agree with you that the most recent decisions of the Bishop's has been to save their asses. However, I don't believe this has been the case over the last 20 years. I think for most of this time they did what they thought was best for the organization they were heading up. Their decision making process was flawed because they did not think it through and get all of the input they needed and because their priorities were all screwed up. They are now being attacked, and have gone to a defensive mode, because of the terrible impact these flawed decision making processes had. And they should be held accountable, even if they thought they were doing what was best at the time.

From all that has come out in the past two days, it sounds as if there was a lot of information out there that the Bush2 team should have known about but, according to them, they did not. As Bush2 himself said today, had he known this was going to happen, he would have done anything needed to prvent it. I believe him. I think any President would do that.

Given all of the information out there, then, why was he not informed of the immediacy of the threat. Sen Feinstein says she was trying in vain to get the Bush2 team to react to what she was informed of on the Intelligence Committee -- that an attack was imminent. If she was concerned about this based on what she knew, why did Bush2's apparatus not see what she saw?

Or was the information there but misunderstood? Or just what? This represents a major concern about his decision making apparatus. And since his actions or lack thereof may have contributed to catastrophic events and changes, one has to ask if one can support a leader's whose processes are that flawed.

Larry,

I have not blamed Bush2 or anyone for what happened on 9/11. The most I have said is that a different reaction by Bush2 might have kept it form happening. I have simply raised the question about whether what we now know about his decision making processes show his decisions about 9/11 and any possible prevention actions to be inadequate. Why do you then defend Bush2 with nothing more than attacks on Bill Clinton?

I accept the fact that there was a lot of information that came out during the Clinton Administration. I also recall all of the work Clinton did to forestall attacks on the US by Al; Quaeda during the Millenium celebrations. Obviously someone at that point was gathering enough information and presenting it to the President to forestall these attacks -- including his making sure people were arrested when they were trying to cross the Canadian border.

Could/should Clinton have done more? Probably. But if this information was there under Clinton, it was still there under Bush2. Since I assume that Bush2 would have acted more foreceully before 9/11 if he understood the immediacy of the threat -- it appears that the Bush2 decision making process failed.

Even the Administration agreed today that they did not have all of the information that was there under Clinton. Why not? Who in the process failed to bring this all to Bush2's attention? His process obviously did not work. He did not have the information he needed to make an informed decision. He needs to be held accountable for this failure in the process just as the Bishops are being held accountable for their failed processes.

How can we now trust that it is any better, if the major example we have to point to showing how it works is so flawed and the results of these flaws have been so horrendous?

George, you have twisted this thing up like a pretzel in order to find some way, any way that President Bush should be held accountable for 911 and the best of your arguments really boil down to "it happened on his watch". You still have not provided us with any examples of any specific information (aside from opportunistic comments from Dianne Feinstein which are also nonspecific) that should have led him to believe that an attack was imminent and the nature of that attack. Is Dianne Feinstein attempting to say that she had specific information of an imminent attack and she was trying desperately to get the Bush administration to listen? Please. That doesn't pass the giggle test except it is no laughing matter when Democrats, desparate for an election issue, attempt to undermine the leadership abilities of the man who is prosecuting a war. Shameful stuff. What do we really know at this point? We have reports of information that something may have been afoot but nothing concrete. It is clear that he did issue alerts internally but given the nature of the information in hand, what else could he have done. What exactly was he supposed to have done differently than what he did. Answer that question and stop with the tomfoolery about managers being responsible for poor decisions. WHAT poor decisions.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Here are the comments from Dianne Feinstein which, in part, includes the following:

"In the wake of the September 11th attacks, the issue is too important to our nation to engage in the kind of politics Mr. Fleischer is practicing. I, for one, do not believe that any of our nation's leadership had specific information last summer to know when and what kind of attack to anticipate[/b]."

"What I said last July on CNN was that I was deeply concerned as to whether our house was in order to prevent a terrorist attack. My work on the Intelligence Committee and as chair of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee had given me a sense of foreboding for some time. I had no specific data leading to a possible attack[/b]." (emphasis mine)

The rest of this document appears to be some very clever second guessing crafted to appear as though the administration was ignoring appeals from Sen. Feinstein that she was making based on her feelings (expressed now after the fact) that something terrible could happen. These people are really disgusting in their opportunism, once again, in their attempts to cast vague aspersions (for political reasons) while simultaneously decrying the other side's partisanship. Whatever Sen. Feinstein may have said or felt months before 911 can always be made to, now after the fact, appear prophetic when, in fact, these sorts of comments are handed out to the media by legislators on a regular basis up to the present.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Try this one, George. It seems that the democrats have opened a can of worms that is about to eat them alive. This is an article about a man who is daring the democrats to subpeona him to testify in their investigation on "who knew what when".

you said:" Thank you, Mat D. I was wondering how long it would be take for me to be called a traitor for raising questions about the President's decisions. And you did not disappoint me."

#1--I never called you a traitor (another misinterpretation of the written word) #2--you don't know me so how can you say I didn't dissappoint you (that's a ridiculous statement) #3---you have every right to express your opinion, in fact, I encourage you to continue; you are making my case that you should thank God you can live in a country where everyone has the right to say what they believe....but because you believe it, it doesn't make it so..

I hope you can find some happiness somewhere, obviously you haven't found it here.

JBryant, thanks for the quotes from Senator Feinstein. You may think she was being opportunistic, but the ONLY reason she said anything was because the White House itself brought he rinto this debate by using her as an example that the Congress had information as well.

So, since the White House wants to compare their knowledge with her's, let's take a look at how her decision making worked compared to theirs.

In her interview of July on CNN she specifically stated that, given the information she had received as a member of the Intelligence Committee, she was very concerned that Osama Bin Laden would launch a major terrorist attack on US soil within the next 2-3 months.

Now, if she was briefed and came to this conclusion, and then tried to get the White House to follow up on this, why did not the White House also come to this conclusion, or at least consider it a possibility and take some sort of action?

You have dismissed Senator Feinstein's discussion of how she tried to get the White House to take this seriously as "some very clever second guessing crafted to appear as though the administration was ignoring appeals from Sen. Feinstein that she was making based on her feelings (expressed now after the fact) that something terrible could happen."

Keep in mind, this is all she could do -- try to get thw White House to take things more seriously. Senator Feinstein is not in the position to order any sort of thorough and quick analysis of information that was received. The White House is.

This is where it appears the decision making process broke down. If a senator, two months before the attack, is warning that an attack is imminent, why didn't the White House interpret things the same way? And if they did interpret it that way, why didn't the President or someone in the White House demand that all intelligence gathering agencies immediately coordinate to get to the bottom of the warnings they had then? If they had, they likely would have "connected the dots", to use the phrase the media is using.

No, the President did not know an attack was going to occur. And, based on their public statements, no one in the White House could even imagine that an airplane would be used as a missile. THIS is exactly the problem.

Others, with less access to information and far less ability to gather information DID anticipate the attack and DID see the possibility of airplanes being used as missiles. This information was available -- in government documents no less!

It is becoming very clear that the decision making apparatus in the White House, under Bush2, did not work properly to gather the available information and interpret it in such a way as to allow the President to do what he should have and would have done if he had the proper information and the proper interpretation of that information.

Senator Feinstein interpreted it differently. The FBI had information about airplanes as missles. Such plots, of flying planes into landmarks around the world, had been made public. And yet, the White House says it had no information to lead them to think an attack was imminent enough to take specific action or says no one conceived of a plane being used this way. Why not? Others did!

The result of this is all that has befallen this country and the world since 9/11. The result of this failure by the White House is catastrophic -- we are at war, no less, because proper information was not gathered and the President was not given policy options which could have possibly prevented this from happening.

IN its most important test, this White House has shown itself to be incompetent in its most basic responsibility, ensuring the security of the homeland. What they have done since does not erase the fact that what they did then (or failed to do) was incompetent and has had massive, negative, effects.

As I said earlier, you can play semantics all you want to, take apart phrases and show them to not be complete, question other's motivations, point the finger at previous administrations...do and say whatever you want.

It still comes down to the fact that others, with far less information and far less ability to gather information, saw things more accurately than the Bush2 White House. It is a fair and proper area of investigation to ask why this is so and to criticize, if not condemn, the White House for this mistake in judgement.

Originally posted by George061875:It still comes down to the fact that others, with far less information and far less ability to gather information, saw things more accurately than the Bush2 White House. It is a fair and proper area of investigation to ask why this is so and to criticize, if not condemn, the White House for this mistake in judgement.[/b]

George, that is the most convoluted, twisted up interpretation of the facts that anyone could possibly hope to come up with. Trying to reason with you is hopeless, because you aren't applying any logic or reasoning. Even trying to explain why isn't worth the effort, because it will do no good.

_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Now, if she was briefed and came to this conclusion, and then tried to get the White House to follow up on this, why did not the White House also come to this conclusion, or at least consider it a possibility and take some sort of action?[/b]

Again I ask you, WHAT ACTION. I have asked you this several times and you keep ducking it only to say that the Administration should have handled its information better. The fact that there was information available that terrorists were considering using airplanes as human bombs does not mean that the Administration had any precise knowledge of when and where an attack would occur or how they would thwart such an attack without this knowledge. It is easy to "connect dots" after the fact but with the information in hand at the time it is a much different matter. You seem to be saying that the Administration is responsible for 911 because if they had acted differently on available information then it would not have happened. There is no indication that that is the case.

Quote:

If a senator, two months before the attack, is warning that an attack is imminent, why didn't the White House interpret things the same way? [/b]

Again from Sen. Feinstein herself:

I had no specific data leading to a possible attack.[/b]

Why do you keep insisting that Sen. Feinstein had information that the Administration did not or that, armed with her (now self-serving) analysis, an attack could have been averted.

Larry is right. It is hopeless trying to reason with you. You and other Democrats are determined to hang 911 around Bush's neck for political reasons and I am convinced that the majority of the people will see through it. You will not be any more successful with this than you were with any of your other red herrings. However, it is useless for me to try and convince you. In the words of Thomas Payne: "Time makes more converts than reason".

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Fascinating how all of you want to find a document that reads: "Mr. President, on the morning of September 11, 2001, Al Quaeda will hijack several airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center and several Washington landmarks." And it such a document is not there, you say that he did not have specific information and therefore cannot be held aco****able. I would argue that it is the President's job to get specific information if it is out there. And, in this case, we know it was.

What we do know is that at least Senator Feinstein was given information that led her to anticipate an imminent attack and try to get the White House to react to it. Of course she had no specific information. No one else did either. That's the problem! The infrormation was available, the White House did not pursue getting it. (And THAT is a misjudgement -- to not pursue it) The question is...why not? The information was there. Why didn't the White House pursue information gathering.

THAT JBryant is one decision that was made -- NOT to pursue information gathering to the extent they got proper information. NOT to have interpreted the same, and probably more information, than Sentaor Feinstein had in a more accurate way.

And if they had it, what could they have done, JBryant?

The advisories sent out by the FAA to the airplies never mentioned the possibility of an imminent attackon American soil. They were all general in nature and spoke of attacks in other countries. This was a decision NOT to send out more specific advisories. In the past such advisories were sent, but no decision was made to get more information on this and hence no specific advisory could be sent.

No advisories were sent to the airports. And yet, in previous years, airports were advised and, at times, security was stepped up. This was a decision -- to not advise the airports and order an increase in security.

Had the White House pursued the information they had in the same way Senator Feinstein was trying to urge them to pursue it, there were MANY actions would could have been taken. Do I know them all? Of course not.

You see, JBryant, you want to get a list of very specific actions which could have been taken so that you can take each one apart and show that they would not necessarily have prevented it. Perhaps not.

But the fact remains, this White House made a decision -- or failed to make one -- about whether or not to pursue with great intensity and immediacy, an investigation as to exactly what was going on -- why were these warnings coming in, what did the intelligence community know, what were possible actions that Al Quaeda might take?

Had they reacted in the same way as senator Feinstein, they would have been presented with all sorts of options for actions to take. Then they could have made decisions based on that. But they never even got that far!

As I said earlier, no one knows for sure if this could have been prevented -- but it certainly seems like it would have been more possible to prevent it if the White House had taken a very different course of actions in July and August. They didn't. And because they didn't, they failed to protect the United States from attack.

Now, why criticizing the White House for not taking adequate action to obtain and analyze information -- the information that was already available! -- is considered partisan politics, I don't know. But apparently, many of you feel that a citizen cannot look at how a President has handled a job and criticize him for what appears to be a failure unless it is partisan in nature. Others, of course, equate criticizing the President with criticizing America.

So be it. Nothing I can do if you feel my only concern is to score political points or to attack the foundations of this country.

Fascinating how all of you want to find a document that reads: "Mr. President, on the morning of September 11, 2001, Al Quaeda will hijack several airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center and several Washington landmarks." And it such a document is not there, you say that he did not have specific information and therefore cannot be held aco****able.[/b]

Don't be silly George. That is not what I meant and you know it.

Quote:

I would argue that it is the President's job to get specific information if it is out there. And, in this case, we know it was.[/b]

Information specific to this attack that would have enabled us to avert it? We know no such thing.

Quote:

What we do know is that at least Senator Feinstein was given information that led her to anticipate an imminent attack[/b]

Again you misstate the facts. All she said was this:

What I said last July on CNN was that I was deeply concerned as to whether our house was in order to prevent a terrorist attack.[/b]

Quit saying that she knew or even thought that an attack was "imminent".

Quote:

As I said earlier, no one knows for sure if this could have been prevented -- but it certainly seems like it would have been more possible to prevent it if the White House had taken a very different course of actions in July and August.[/b]

You could say that about practically anything bad that has happened throughout history. This seems like a rather cheap way, with the gift of hindsight, to hold someone responsible for what we all know was a totally unforeseen event.

Quote:

Now, why criticizing the White House for not taking adequate action to obtain and analyze information -- the information that was already available! -- is considered partisan politics, I don't know. But apparently, many you feel that a citizen cannot look at how a President has handled a job and criticize him for what appears to be a failure unless it is partisan in nature. Others, of course, equate criticizing the President with criticizing America.

So be it. Nothing I can do if you feel my only concern is to score political points or to attack the foundations of this country. [/b]

Sorry George. Before this thread started I may have given you the benefit of the doubt on this but you have shown yourself to be so impervious to logic or reason and so dogged in your pursuit of Bush that you could only be looking at this issue as a Democrat and not simply as an American. I do not denegate your patriotism or your love of country in any way but I believe you to be blinded to the facts by your dislike of Bush and your zeal to seize on even the slightest indication that he may have made a mistake.

I believe that Democrat politicians are placing politics and power before country and for that they will pay the price. I want to make it plain to Democrats in general that I do not place them in the same category. Most I know are willing to let the facts come out before they stampede to a conclusion that Bush is responsible for 911. I believe when all the facts do come out that he will be vindicated.

It's been fun George but I have other things I need to do and I have spent way too much of my time on this fools errand as it is. By the way, check the spelling of my name. Unless you are deliberately trying to aggravate me in which case nice try.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

The Democratic party has for years (certainly since 1992) put partisan politics ahead of the country. The party is bankrupt of ideas and has for the most part campaigned on trying to smear most of their opponents.

One of their MO's is to throw as much spagetti against the wall and hope some of it will stick. Ken Starr was well liked and viewed as a very fair arbiter by people of both parties until the smear campaign against him started. The attempt to smear Kathleen Harris in Florida was out of the same play book. Need I mention the women of the Clinton legacy? Seldom will you find facts to substantiate the charges made. You *will* find hyperbole to the nth degree. Such as the Clinton Gore mantra that Republicans want to starve children, kill old people, and poison the air and water. Yeah right.

When Democrats throw this stuff out there, their intent is two fold. If at all possible, they hope some one can prove it. (Seldom happens.) The other is to talk about it and engage the subject as long as possible so that those who will not think for themselves will hear it repeated enough times that they start to believe it. This is what our friend George is currently doing here.

I personally find no benefit in engaging in these "Have you stopped beating your wife" arguments with those who would use this as political strategy.

Now I'm not saying this is the belief of all registered Democrats. But I am saying it is the way of the party leaders, and many of the followers eat it right up.

And yes, the Republican party has plenty of their own faults and I don't much care for them either. But they have never shown the testasterone the Democrats have in trying to make political hay out of everything. Sheesh! :rolleyes:

But, George, I still like ya'!

_________________________
There are few joys in life greater than the absence of pain.

I think that the implication was that since the President knew, then the airlines should have been put on notice.

But these "analyses" are things that college students write up all the time. (Anybody out there do graduate work on foreign affars?) I'm sure that the White House recieves hundreds of these warnings; which ones are they to act on?

Who knows how far up the chain reports get; the intellegence report the FBI and CIA made was in 1999. Do you want to guess what was more important than Osama in 1999? Me, I think it was Y2K. And I'm not talking about the computers.

Jumping into this one late and I don't have the enrgy to wade through all the posts.

I agree with much of George's first statement (that's a first!). Enron was knee deep in California's artificial electricity crisis and the Feds let it happen. The experiments that we perform in our lab are very power hungry. They are also potentially dangerous should the power suddenly go off in the middle of an experiment. So, as ops manager I checked Cal ISO every day, knew where we were in the blackout rotation, etc... The strange thing was that the system would run quite happily at 30 something odd GWatts of demand, the problems occurred when the sytem was not peaking, but when demand was down in the high 20's of GWatts. Right now the system is showing available resources as 34 GWatts yet we haven't added any major power plants in the last year (well maybe a couple of small ones). FERC found nothing unusual about this. Indirectly Bush is involved as he can only make decisions based on the information given him by those working for him. Lay isn't around now and FERC is fessin' up that there were some improprieties going on. Enron wasn't the only company involved. Enron is going out of business, yet the California utility customer is left owing gazillions of dollars - who'w going to get this money?

The lesson from this - California needs to become the most power hungry state in the union. That way when we reach crisis level it won't hurt to turn off a few things. We are fast going the same way with water. The water districts keep putting the screws to us - the city allows building to go on unabated but adds no extra water capacity (or sewage). We're just told to reduce consumption and they put the rates up to enforce this. At some point we will not be able to reduce consumption anymore without a major impact. Course at that point it will take years to bring more water supply on line. And that's from a California Democratic government.

Sorry George, don't agree with you second statement about the hijackings. We have now been informed that another round of attacks are on the way. There are no specifics. Should the country be locked down to prevent this? If so, for how long? And against what? Then the terrorists win. The rules have changed and we are now all potentially combatants, like it or not. I've booked my vacation to Europe for this summer.

Sorry Iain, I'm not buying the victim status for California energy consumers. California's problems began when the California Legislature decided to "deregulate", and I use that word advisedly, the energy industry at the producer level while, at the same time, capping prices at the consumer level. Anyone familiar with econ 101 can tell you that is a recipe for shortages. Also, a part of the Legislature's "deregulation" included forbidding distributers to also be producers. Producers could charge any price the market would bear while distributers had to sell to consumers at a capped price leaving the distributors to eat the difference. This, coupled with the fact that California has added no new generating capacity in the last ten years left California at the mercy of out of state producers who were beyond the control of the California Assembly. Distributers lost their shirts, consumers (because of the capped prices) never had any incentive to conserve, and tax payers ultimately had to pick up the costs. I don't doubt that there were some bad players at the producer level who took advantage of the situation and I would even stipulate that Enron was probably the worst of them. But California's energy problems can be laid directly at the doorstep of California's political leaders. No other state experienced any of these problems while dealing with many of the same producers and Enron by itself or in concert with other energy companies could not have brought about California's energy woes.

Edit: Rereading your post, maybe you weren't trying to make that point (that California was a victim of greedy energy companies). Sorry if I misinterpreted. Or did I?

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

JBryan - was trying to make a few points! There were many problems with deregulation and price gouging in California. George indicated Bush was involved and I was agreeing. But as you pointed out Gray Davis's buddies fared no better (in the deregualtion process and dealing with the aftermath). It's politics that is the problem! Maybe a Dictatorship would be better!

However I do not believe there was ever a shortage of electricity. It is strange that the state has not come close to a shortage since last summer and we still have not added any new generating facilities. Why? If you look at the electrical infrastructure for the western US you will notice a grid of transmission facilities under the loose coordination of the WSCC (Western Systems Coordinating Council). The purpose of this is to share power. The system includes border regions of Canada and Mexico. When it is frigid in the north and mild in the south, power can be shifted northward to take up demand. When it is mild in the north and cooking in the deserts, power can be shifted southward. Power peaks in the midwest are shifted in time by one to two hours - while we are still at work, others are home cooking dinner (there's a peak around 6.00 pm when everyone starts cooking and watching TV).

For all this to work requires a respectable transmission system. If I understand what Enron (and others) did they max'd out the system using fuzzy math, ie they artificially shifted power from A to B then back to A via a separate route (this of course was on paper, as the power will go by the most direct route). By using large enough numbers they persuaded the system operators that certain transmission lines were max'd out and thus no more power could be transmitted through them. There was more power available in the west, just no way to move it (supposedly). This then allowed Enron to charge whatever price it wanted. It wasn't a free market, it was a monopoly. Howeve, I don't know that they broke any laws and you have to give them credit for pushing the rules to the max (rules by and large set up by politicians).

You make some interesting points. I don't know why there are no shortages now, I had assumed that demand was lower but I don't know that for a fact. That is some fancy footwork by Enron that you describe but it is certainly in character with a lot of the other schemes associated with them. As for involvement by Bush, I haven't seen any evidence of it but if any comes to light, well, let the chips fall where they may.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Originally posted by iainhp:However I do not believe there was ever a shortage of electricity. It is strange that the state has not come close to a shortage since last summer and we still have not added any new generating facilities. [/b]

Actually, there were a couple of new generating facilities brought on line in the last year. These facilities were complete or nearly complete and were sitting idle waiting for one bureaucratic approval or another. The "crisis" put the bureaucrats on the hotseat and the permits were issued. There are a couple more generators that are being upgraded, having obtained permits that they never could have gotten otherwise.

Now that the prices have gone up, there does not seem to be a problem. This may have something to do with the fact that the suspiciously large percentage of generators that were shut down for "maintenance" (simultanelously, and during a time of peak demand) all now seem to run just fine. Interesting that the requests for bids sent out to do this "maintenance" did not contain the normal penalty clauses for failure to complete on time.

It may also have to do with the spotlight now placed on the suppliers. Enron may very well have played a part in it, although if they did I doubt they were alone. The power supplier in San Diego (can't remember the name) almost certainly played a part, as they were the first to spike rates when they could, sometimes by as much as 300%.

Then there is of course, the peculiar wording in the deregulation agreement that capped the retail sale price of power but not the wholesale price. That particular provision appears to have been voided. Too, the provisions that allowed Edison to dump poor investments and old crummy generating plants at ratepayer expense have pretty much been exercised so they should calm down a bit as well.

Which brings us to what to do about it. Our governor, Mr. Davis, is a consumate politician, but not much of a businessman. Having transferred a 9+ billion dollar surplus from the State coffers to the energy companies (the result of some poorly conceived and hastily written contracts for long term power supply), he is now faced with the unpleasant task of hiking taxes - substantially. Not something the man-who-would-be-president wants to do.

Being the plu-perfect politician that he is, you can bet he is doing everything in his power to try to get some of these contracts rescinded - as well he should. The Enron debaucle may be just the "out" he needed to do it. I don't care how he does it, but I hope he pulls it off.

I'll worry about his presidency when the time comes. Meantime, he seems pretty well ensconced as govenor of California. The ultra right wing guy the Republicans put up - elected thanks in part to a hefty campaign contribution from none other than The Hon. Gov. Gray Davis himself (to be sure the more moderate Rebublican candidate did not get the nomination) does not have a prayer. Not in California, not any time soon.

Never less, Bush clearly didn't have a good grasp of foreign affairs while running for election, thus he was probably not incredibly attune to possible terrorist threats.[/b]

The facts as we know them now are that not only was Bush attuned to terrorist attacks before 911 but that his administration devoted a great deal of effort and concern towards the "noise" that was indicating the possibility of an attack all through June, July, and August. It is just a tragic fact of life that one cannot protect 360 degrees 24 hours a day. That is why the best strategy against terrorism is to attack them and not just to prepare for their attacks.

Quote:

On the other side, Clinton did know more about foreign policy and certainly had heard warnings, I'm sure, but there was such fervent bickering in the government during his stay that action on many issues was deadlocked and brushed under the carpet due to the march of the Lewinsky affair --- to the discredit of all involved, IMO.[/b]

The Clinton foreign policy throughout his two terms can only be characterized as feckless, aimless, and totally reactive. There never were any clear long term goals (unless you count turning our sovreignty over to the UN). In the end, his foreign policy seemed to be aimed totally at his own self-aggrandizement. It's also curious how the strategy from the left going forward is to blame Clinton's failings on Lewinsky instead of the other way round. Bill Clinton is an incredibly gifted individual and the real tragedy of Clinton is the utter waste of such potential.

Quote:

The last time my aunt took a plane (she has the sweetest face/disposition in the world – priests confess to her), she was patted down, had to remove her belt and shoes, all of her luggage was opened, and she was asked to drink the bottled water in her valise to prove that it wasn't an explosive. On the other hand, when I flied right before Christmas, I didn't garner a second look through three layovers, though I'm a young male with dark hair and an accent, I had a one-way ticket, traveled alone, and happened to be in a bad mood that day with a ****-off expression and dark circles under my eyes - go figure. I also read that Ray Charles, the famous, semi-feeble blind American in his late seventies, was given a full body search by airport security. That's absolutely absurd. There are lots of similar stories - 65-year old ladies with their grandkids and bags full of Disneyworld souvenirs getting full frisks and the like -- the inconvenience is absolutely fine, but the method of profiling seems ludicrous. [/b]

What profiling? Profiling is not allowed, remember? Not "PC". This, of course, is the determination made by Norman Mineta (Democrat) Secretary of Transportation appointed by Bush as a (misguided, I believe) sop to the left. Screening is now done totally at random. That is why your sweet aunt and not yourself was screened. The last time I flew the determination was based solely on a number stamped on your boarding card. Brainless? Yes. But who started us down this anti-profiling road. There were some real abuses in the past when profiling was used inappropriately but now we find ourselves in a situation where even your sweet aunt and Ray Charles are singled out for searches.

Quote:

Basically, what George is saying in many places is "Does Bush's administration work efficiently and to the best of America's benefit? Would it be in the position to prevent another attack? How much confidence are you willing to put in Bush's method of government and his administrators?" Important questions to consider.[/b]

I agree that we should always consider these important questions but that is not the point George was making. If you read his original post you will see that his point was that the Bush Administration is A) corrupt and B) incompetent. It is only after he is flushed out by the facts that he begins to retreat to a more moderate position.

I believe an investigation of the ways in which our intelligence services work and interact with one another is in order and I am not in total agreement with all of the security measures in place. In the end, the responsibility falls On Bush and Bush alone but outright attacks on his leadership in advance of any of the relevant facts is, in my view, totally irresponsible in times like these.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Ah, the stupid American. Probably so caught up in trying to figure out how to properly fill out a butterfly ballot, that they completely missed the events of 911. Or the action by the administration that followed afterwards.

Yes, those ignorant Americans. Too caught up in creating and maintaining the world's greatest nation to properly examine their own political leaders. how silly of us!

I'm sorry to burst your bubble of elitic smugness, but the American people tend to be a little sharper than you think. Witness the Democratic party turning on a political dime just this past weekend. After throwing baseless charges to the wind for almost a week, you could see the political horns start to shrink on Friday and by Sunday they were mere nubs. The reason that the pols turned down the volume on the anti-Bush political noise is that the American people recognized it for exactly what it was - unfounded propaganda. The American people know that party affiliation should not be a factor in international affairs or in war. And yes, we are involved in a war, a different and new kind of war, and the American people also recognize that fact.

And lastly, the American people are smart enough to figure out that no political administration, either Democrat or Republican, can intercept every threat, or provide complete public safety from any deranged person or terrorist organization.

Whenever a politician starts to consider his constituents dumb and ignorant, is usually the day he can start planning his retirement, for his position just became temporary.

"There are lots of similar stories - 65-year old ladies with their grandkids and bags full of Disneyworld souvenirs getting full frisks and the like -- the inconvenience is absolutely fine, but the method of profiling seems ludicrous."

I was under the impression the last time I flew (a couple of weeks ago) that the searching was completely random - ie: that a number came up and that particular person in line was the one that got searched. I don't think its got anything to do with profiling.